Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) By this writ application, the writ petitioner an approved Assistant Teacher of Life Science in the concerned school, has prayed for direction for revocation of the order of suspension and a further direction upon respondents to pay full salary from the of date suspension minus subsistence allowances already paid.
(2.) The following facts are not in dispute: (a) The petitioner was arrested on 31st October, 2002 in connection with Nalhati Police Station case being P.S. Case No.134 of 2002 dated 30th October, 2002 under Section 498A, 306 of the Indian Penal Code and was ultimately released on bail on January 6, 2003 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rampurhat. (b) The Managing Committee of the school by an order dated 14th December, 2002, informed the petitioner that he had been suspended from service w.e.f. 31st October, 2002 as he was in continuous detention in custody on a criminal charge. In the said letter it was mentioned that he would remain under suspension until further order vide G.O. No. 2009-SE(S) 3rd November, 2000. (c) The grievance of the writ petitioner in this application is that although he was released on bail on 6th January, 2003 and subsequently in the charge-sheet submitted in the concerned criminal case, the name of the petitioner has not been included, he has not been permitted to join his duty nor has he been paid full salary. Mr. Batabyal, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that under Management of recognised Non-Government Institution (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 1969, as amended, the managing committee of a school cannot keep a teacher under suspension for indefinite period of time without obtaining sanction from the Board. Mr. Batabyal further contends that in this case, un disputedly no proceeding having been initiated by the managing committee against the petitioner, the suspension lost its force after the expiry of 90 days as the school authority has not ever prayed for extension before the Board. He, thus, prays for direction upon the respondent, to permit the petitioner to join his duty and for passing direction for payment of full salary during the period of suspension.
(3.) This application is opposed by both the school authority and the State/respondent and Mr. Chakraborti, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the school authority, has vehemently contended that after the amendment of the aforesaid Rule by insertion of sub-rule 8(b) in Rule 28, the moment a teacher is detained in custody beyond 48 hours, he should be deemed to be under suspension until further order from managing committee. Mr. Chakraborti contends that in view of such amended sub-rule 8(b), there is no necessity of even taking approval of the Board for continuation of such suspension. Mr. Chakraborti submits that sub-rule 9 of Rule 28 is independent of sub-rule 8(b) of Rule 28.;